Corneal Temperature Reversal After Storage in Chen Medium Compared With Optisol GS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare corneal endothelial cell function by measuring corneal thickness during temperature reversal between corneas stored in two different storage media, Optisol GS and Chen Medium (CM). METHODS: Twenty paired corneas from 10 human donors were randomly assigned for storage at 4 degrees C in Optisol GS (10 corneas) or CM (10 corneas). The storage media were masked, and measurements were done in a masked fashion. After storage for 48 hours, corneal thickness was measured by ultrasonic pachymetry at 2-hour intervals for 12 hours, during which time the corneas were perfused with BSS (balanced salt solution) Plus at 37 degrees C. Scanning electron microscopy of two pairs of corneas from two donors was performed to assess ultrastructural change after 12 hours of warming. RESULTS: Corneal thickness decreased during the first 4 hours of the warming period and then increased during the 6-to 12-hour warming period. These changes in corneal thickness over time were similar for the two storage media (p = 0.212). Scanning electron microscopy showed greater amounts of endothelial cell disruption in Optisol GS-stored corneas than those stored in CM after 12 hours of warming and perfusion. CONCLUSIONS: The endothelial pump of corneas stored in CM appear to be as well-preserved as those stored in Optisol GS, although greater endothelial disruption may be present with Optisol GS by scanning electron microscopy. Further studies are required to compare the clinical effectiveness of these two media.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".